Blogging in Darknesshttps://bloggingindarkness.wordpress.com
"and by his light I walked through darkness"Wed, 13 Dec 2017 03:27:23 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngBlogging in Darknesshttps://bloggingindarkness.wordpress.com
Hopeful Calvinism (Part 2)https://bloggingindarkness.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/hopeful-calvinism-part-2/
https://bloggingindarkness.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/hopeful-calvinism-part-2/#respondWed, 23 May 2012 16:47:56 +0000http://bloggingindarkness.wordpress.com/?p=67]]>(I introduced the concept of this post last time in part 1. What follows is a continuation of pat 1 and assumes it as a background.)

3.a. Problems and Prospects

In presenting a possible case where one might be a hopeful Calvinist, there are several problems such a case will meet. One is that the proposed Calvinist system is “deterministic.” I use scare quotes because this is divine determinism, and as such I believe it is only roughly analogous to nomological physicalist determinism. However, since it is a kind of determinism, then libertarian freedom will not obtain, compatibilist freedom will. For some, this will be the end of it; and I admit that, at least in this post, I do not have and will not give any argument against libertarian free will or for compatibilism. But, as some consolation, I will grant a lot—in fact, probably more than has been granted heretofore by a Calvinist—to libertarian intuitions (see 3.b.).

So for those who are least willing to swallow the pill they’re asked to swallow in this post, I hope I at least make it an easier pill to swallow. But for those who find the “horrors of hell” to be a main or particularly strong reason to be a hopeful universalist, such that even libertarian demands will be tossed aside if they get in the way of anyone avoiding the horrors of hell, then what I say below should resonate with you.

On the other hand, some Calvinists might be perturbed by the concessions in this post. I should “take no prisoners,” and I should always argue the strongest case, the ones that have the most difficult to prove premises. Moreover, what follows below is speculative theology, and it is improper if not impious to engage in such theorizing. I am sorry to say that, at least here, I will not argue for the propriety of this, and I will not offer an apology for the foregoing.

For some, my insistence that I do not accept the hopeful universalist argument, as well as do think that there are times when the stronger arguments need to be given, will not be enough. Others, noting the burden I accepted in part 1, and the modest aim of these posts, will not have a problem. I do think, though, that what I say does have some merit in the overall debate between universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians, if at least to show that not all of the options have been considered, as well as thinking that what follows may have some value for some Reformed Christians who may struggle with these issues. Since, I think, the Bible is underdetermined regarding what I have to say, and since the below case seems possible as far as we know, it may have some small value in perhaps lowering the defeating power of some anti-Calvinist argument, or for raising degrees of warrant back up. Maybe, I don’t know. I will also briefly suggest how the case I present fits with some Calvinist intuitions regarding the glory of God and his ultimate responsibility (which doesn’t entail culpability) for all things, as well as fitting with some of our intuitions about grace.

3.b. Determinism and Mitigating Compatibilism

Libertarians have always claimed that determinism rules out free will and moral responsibility. As I said, I can’t grant that. What I will grant, for this post, is that the libertarian is mostly right. Determinism mitigates, though doesn’t eliminate, responsibility. As I said above, divine determinism is roughly analogous to physicalist nomological determinism. However, it also bears a close analogy, I say, to cases of manipulation(see here, for an all-too-brief, sketchy introduction to this raging debate in free will/moral responsibility corners).

I don’t want to spend much time explaining that the reader ought not take ‘manipulation’ in too woodenly literal of ways. It is a very broad term, and can, I say, fit almost all models of providence popular in Christian circles, especially Molinism. But I can’t spend time here exploring this, I just want to make sure the reader doesn’t waste time wringing hands over the term ‘manipulation’ all because they have some concrete picture in mind of what it manipulation must be. To reiterate, it is a broad term. Aside from fitting with popular views of providence, manipulation (as defined here) goes on in families, with parents manipulating the environment, beliefs, etc., to form the characters of their children.

In the literature, there are indeterminist/probabilistic cases of manipulation, and determinist ones too. I focus on determinist ones. So back to mitigation. Patrick Todd has a paper where he argues that defenders of manipulator arguments need only argue that determinist manipulation is responsibility, and thus culpability, mitigating (see Todd, “A New Approach to Manipulation Arguments,” Philosophical Studies 152(1), (2011), pp. 127-133). Justin Capes argues for a compatibilism that saves responsibility and thus culpability in a forthcoming paper (forthcoming in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research) titled, “Mitigating Soft-Compatibilism.” He grants Todd’s suggestion that we view deterministic manipulation (the qualifier ‘deterministic’ is not in either paper, I used it to avoid arguing for cases of indeterministic manipulation, such as Molinism) as responsibility mitigating and argues that we can still allow for ascriptions of responsibility, culpability, praise, blame, etc.

So we grant that determinism is responsibility mitigating, though not eliminating. This concedes a lot to the libertarian, more than any (classical) Calvinist has conceded.

3.c. Hopeful Calvinism

I now apply the above to presenting a case that is a counterexample to HOPEFOR (see post 1). What follows from mitigating compatibilism? Well, one thing is that if the degree of responsibility and culpability is mitigated, so is the harshness or fullness of the punishment. We tend to think this way already. Finding facts about a murderer’s abusive upbringing may cause us to assign less responsibility to him, and to dole out a less harsh punishment than if he were a near omnipotent ultimate cause of his actions and source of his character. If the causal or character-forming buck stops exactly at the agent, then the agent bears the full brunt of the punishment for wrongdoing. Libertarianism doesn’t mitigate responsibility, it heightens it; and thus, on a retributivist schema, the full penalty is brought to bear. To whom much is given, much is expected.

Not so on mitigating compatibilism. As Capes point out (ibid),

According to [mitigating compatibilists], being deterministically caused to perform a morally wrong action by factors beyond one’s control and for which one is not responsible is a mitigating factor; it diminishes (without necessarily eliminating) one’s blameworthiness and, accordingly, the severity of punishment one may properly be said to deserve. One of their central thoughts is that, although determinism is compatible with the strongest sort of freedom or control minimally required for some degree of moral responsibility, agents in certain indeterministic contexts may exercise more robust forms of control over their behavior and, for that reason, may be deserving of more blame and harsher punishment for their bad actions than their counterparts in deterministic universes.

[…]

The discovery that determinism is true, mitigating soft compatibilists will say, would have important implications for how we ought to treat one another. It would not affect whether we can legitimately praise and blame, punish and reward, but it would have implications for how much praise and blame and how much punishment and reward people deserve. In the absence of any ordinary mitigating factors, we often tend to assume that wrongdoers bear full (i.e., unmitigated) responsibility for their actions. But if we were to discover that determinism is true, mitigating soft compatibilists, unlike other compatibilists, would insist that this natural tendency would need to be curbed.

While I do not endorse mitigating compatibilism, and so am not arguing that it is true, it is, for all we know, possibly the case. And its possibility is all that’s needed to undermine HOPEFOR. How, then, could we possibly hope for Calvinism? It is possible that determinism is responsibility and thus culpability mitigating. If it is, the degree of severity of a punishment is lessened as well. On libertarianism, however, it is at its maximum height (I stipulate this but it seems to fit with what libertarians have told us both about libertarianism and determinism). Ultimate punishment for ultimate causes.

This has the consequence that on Calvinism, those who will be in hell forever are not punished as severely as they would be otherwise if libertarianism were true. True, some may hold out and claim libertarian free will cannot be given up. But to paint a stark and exaggerated picture, especially for those who sympathize with the “badness of hell” problem, on mitigating Calvinism, those consigned to hell must sit in a chair in the a room for eternity, let out only for 10 spankings a day. While if God allowed the libertarian freedom to obtain, those in hell may be daily stripped of their skin and rolled in salt and then cooked in fire. I don’t think either of these are literal, the point was for effect. Basically the point is this: if Calvinism is true it is possible that the “horrors of hell” will be significantly less horrific than if libertarianism were true, where the full brunt of the punishment is deserved to the fullest extent.

3.d. Some Benefits and Possible Fits with Calvinist and Christian Desiderata

I say, then, that what looked like an open and shut case—i.e., that if TRADITION is true, then so is HELLZNO, and so, necessarily, if TRADITION obtained, HOPEFOR obtains—has a counterexample, and it may be that we should all hope that libertarianism isn’t true.

But mitigating Calvinism also rightly places ultimate responsibility on God, where it rightly belongs. This does not imply that God is culpable, but that argument must be saved for another day. Another desiderata we see more fully is that in the strongest of deterministic cases, responsibility can be lost. This strong sense may obtain in salvation. Thus, we have a fit here with Christian desiderata regarding salvation being all of God and not “up to” us. It is not something we can be praised for. On top of this, since we’re granting determinism, God could easily make it the case that the number of those in (mitigated) hell is exactly whatever fitting number it needs to be to display God’s justice

4. Conclusion

I recognize the speculative nature of this argument, and realize that for some there’s zero interest in such things. But aside from the fun of mental exercises like this, I think there’s some benefits an argument like this brings. I have met the libertarian more than half-way, and the results have been shocking: possibly, we had better hope that Arminianism is not true. It could be that there will be more people in hell and suffering more intensely than on there would be on Calvinism. To those libertarians, like Roger Olson, who have said that the only possible way they could accept Calvinism were if universalism were true, well, now they has another reason.

Forgive any sloppy mistakes, I typed much of this with one hand while in the hospital holding my newborn baby with the other!

0. Introduction

“Hopeful Universalism” gets a lot of attention these days. It is said that, even if you don’t believe that universal reconciliation is the case, you should at least hope that it is the case. Of course, universalists think this, but so do many non-universalists (whether they are agnostic on the matter, annihilationalists, committed classical Arminians, and probably even some Calvinists, I’d assume). Alvin Plantinga summed up this view nicely when he said in an interview with Robert Lawrence on Closer to the Truth (2:10-4:45) that:

Christians sort of, traditionally, classically, think there are these two states after death. There is heaven and there is hell, and the people who are chosen by God or have faith in God or accept what God requires them to, they wind up in heaven, others wind up in hell. I’m not so sure the Bible actually teaches that. There are lots of passages in the Bible that suggest that everybody winds up in heaven. So St. Paul says something like ‘as through one man sin entered the world, so through one man shall all be saved. As the one man all sinned, so through the one man all shall be saved. It is the same word, same greek word in those two occurrences that suggest that everybody will be saved. . . . That’s called universalism. And I don’t myself quite believe it, but I don’t disbelieve it either. I think it’s something that a Christian should at least hope for.

I suspect Plantinga expresses the sentiments of many Christians.

1. Hoping For Universalism?

One major idea behind hopeful universalism is this: Hell is so bad, and the thought of people (whether friends and loved ones, or unknowns) spending forever there is so dreadful, that we should hope that hell will not be populated by people forever. It is often put this way: How can you really, fully, completely enjoy heaven if you knew your, say, daughter was in hell? Of course, I don’t mean to say that hopeful universalists are myopically driven by considerations of the badness of hell, they also certainly believe that life in heaven is so good that they don’t want anyone missing out in it. But the badness objection does seem to be a (if not the) major motivator.

But what does embracing hopeful universalism entail? Suppose I believe that it is true that there is a hell and that it will be populated by some people forever. Should I hope against “reality?” Would that be irrational? Well, the hopeful universalist says that what I should hope for in this case is that my reading of the biblical texts are mistaken. Surely, even if the Bible is infallible, that does not imply that our interpretations are infallible. So, hopeful universalism says we should hope that we’re mistaken about our reading of Scripture. Some Christians may say that they believe in libertarian free will, and therefore that God can’t ensure that all will go to heaven. Putting aside arguments that universalism could obtain even if our choices were purely random, one thing the hopeful universalist will suggest that we should at least hope that we’re wrong about God not interfering with our libertarian freedom. The cost is too high, and God is too loving. Any good parent would interfere with her children’s libertarian free will choices or actions in some cases. For example, if their child were about to commit suicide.

The point to make here is that hell is so terrible (and heaven so wonderful) that we should at least hope that we’re wrong about even some of our most cherished beliefs if those things stand as obstacles to God getting everyone into heaven.

2. If Not Universalism, What Else?

Since hopeful universalism is not my direct concern in this post, we can grant that it’s the best of all eschatological hopes (though in the interest of full disclosure I do not agree with this). This means that classical Arminians, classical Wesleyans, Open Theists, and Calvinists should all hope that universalism is the case. That is, they should all hope that they are wrong about their respective tradition’s take on the final state of man. However, we all agree, I think, that, at a minimum, universalism could be false (many think it is false). Evangelical Christians of all stripes may be strongly committed to their own particular view of man’s final state, but it seems to me they would all admit that it is possible that they could be wrong. For example, I assume a large percent of Christians at least believe something like this:

TRADITION = It is a possible that, for all we know, “the tradition” is right; i.e., there is a hell and it will be populated by some people forever. Furthermore, the punishment received by those in hell is of a retributive sort (even if not only of a retributive sort).

Now, certainly, many Christians believe that TRADITION is true (which has the consequence that annihilationism is false too). But most, if not all, believe that it could be true. I would also be willing to say that many Christians, even if they don’t ultimately don’t buy it, believe that TRADITION has some decent arguments in its favor, the least of which is, church tradition itself. So, hopeful universalists, annihilationists, traditionalists, etc., might find themselves asking a question like this: Well, what if universalism is wrong, and what if TRADITION is right, what should we hope for then? Well, here is one view I think virtually all evangelical Christians would be in agreement about:

HELLZNO = Should we hope for Calvinism? Hellz no! We should never hope for Calvinism over any other (broadly traditional) view on offer.

Now, by ‘Calvinism’ I mean here, classical Calvinism. I will define this minimally and broadly for our purposes as the view that God determines all that comes to pass, man does not have libertarian free will, and some people will be retributively punished in hell—those and only those people God passed over, all others are graciously given faith to believe in Jesus. Well, what would be hoped for? I wouldn’t be a stretch to say that most evangelical Christians, including evangelical universalists, would hope that something like Classical ARMinianism obtains:

CARM = If TRADITION is true, Classical Arminianism is the only game in town for which to hope.

By ‘Classical Arminianism’ I mean minimally and broadly the view that God has given man libertarian free will to choose for or against Jesus, God gives grace to all men to make them able to trust in Jesus, hell is retributive (we’re stipulating this via TRADITION), but all those who go to hell were the indeterminist “ultimate source” of their actions that led them to hell. Note also that all that is claimed in CARM is that we should hope that Classical Arminianism is true, not that it is. It’s somehow kinder or more humane to hope for this over, say Calvinism, in ways similar to hoping for universalism is kinder and more humane.

Now, given TRADITION and HELLZNO and CARM, the latter two I suspect enjoy a large body of support on the stipulation of TRADITION, we have something like this:

HOPEFOR = Necessarily (via HELLZNO), if TRADITION is true, we should hope for CARM over Calvinism.

I suspect that most Christians, universalists included, believe that HOPEFOR is true. That is, there is no possible circumstance in which anyone minimally concerned with their fellow-man should hope for Calvinism over Classical Arminianism. I suspect most Christians simply find HOPEFOR to be obvious, a no-brainer.

3. Could We Hope For Calvinism?

I’m not sure such a strong claim can be made, though. In fact, I want to argue that, for all we know, HELLZNO and CARM are false; and that, given some plausible assumptions, assumptions had by many hopeful universalists (which, you will remember, includes not just dogmatic universalists), and assumptions about punishment and culpability that grant a fair amount of weight to libertarian intuitions, there could be a case in which Classical Calvinism should be hoped for over CARM. I take it that this is a highly controversial claim, and many cannot see how such a case could be made. But not seeing how something is possible doesn’t mean it’s impossible. In the next post I will present the case and, while I know not everyone will be persuaded, some may be, especially those hopeful universalists motivated by considerations of the badness or terrors of hell.

To be continued . . .

]]>https://bloggingindarkness.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/hopeful-calvinism-part-1/feed/0paule4c5Welcome to the Asylumhttps://bloggingindarkness.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/welcome-to-the-asylum/
https://bloggingindarkness.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/welcome-to-the-asylum/#respondFri, 18 May 2012 23:03:27 +0000http://bloggingindarkness.wordpress.com/?p=7]]>To avoid the build-up of writing an earth shattering first post in order to justify this blog’s existence, I’ll just link to this post which inquires about the claim made by some libertarians that libertarianism may be crazy, but it’s the best we’ve got. This appears to be an iteration of the old street fighting saying: Crazy beats strong every time.

I’ll close by highlighting John Fischer’s comment:

I actually don’t think libertarianism is ‘crazy’–nor do I think my own approach is! I think each approach has its more and less attractive features, and one has to do some sort of holistic ‘cost/beneft’ analysis.

Why not, however, opt for the best view: Semicompatibilism. We can accept the best features of libertarianism: the incompatibility of causal determinism and freedom to do otherwise and also the fact that we are indeed robustly morally responsible–and yet avoid the worst aspects of libertarianism, including that our freedom hangs on a thread. What is appealing about Semicompatibilism is that it avoids some of the ‘craziness’ of other views and embraces their sane and sensible insights!